Talk:Bull's strength (feat)
A few questions about this feat... #How long does Bull's Strength (feat) last? #Does it stack with Greater Bull's strength? (Or is it Greater Bulls?) SteveMaurer (talk) 19:49, September 4, 2012 (UTC) * If you followed the link to the spell, you might see that bull's strength lasts 1 hour / level. In general, different spells do stack unless there is a special note to the contrary. For example, see greater bull's strength (which seems like a reasonable second place to check for this question, no?). --The Krit (talk) 20:55, September 4, 2012 (UTC) :* Although the hard work and replies are appreciated, it would be better if their tone were expressed in a less desultory manner. It turns out that it is possible to find the actual answer to the first question, but it is not listed under the Bulls Strength spell at all. Instead, it's buried in the text under the Special Abilities section of Caster Level: "Special abilities can also have caster levels associated with them. For player characters, these special abilities usually come in the form of feats associated with a particular class; the caster level of these special abilities is the''' associated class level." (emphasis added) Meaning, presumably, this means it's the Blackguard Levels alone that determine the length of the Bull's Strength (feat), duration, not overall character level, or levels from other classes that also give access to the Bull's Strength spell. This is not linked to by anything in the current text. :: Nor is it clear whether Extend spell, if the PC has it, can extend the duration of the spell provided by this feat (the Extend added as part of an item property or not). Presumably the answer is no, but it is not explicitly stated, and searching this entire wiki for an explicit answer (if it does exist under some other unreferenced section) is burdensome. :: In terms of checking stacking with greater bull's strength, again, the text says "(However, bull's strength can be cast '''after greater bull's strength to get the bonuses from both to stack.)", which leaves open the possibility that the feat might not be covered, as it refers to a single spell when the feat and spell are different. It seems clear now, that what was meant is "both". But that is implicit, not explicit. ::SteveMaurer (talk) 00:06, September 5, 2012 (UTC) ::*Yes welcome its just as you said. The current wiki admin is working really hard on removing any redundancy - if is something said on place A, there is no reason to write it under B right? Anyway, the extend spell would work, if the feat could be extended - which cannot without custom content like metamagic override feature from Community patch. Summary: This feat merely triggers spell - only the caster level and thus anything tied with it differs. AlsoOftenHumiliatedWikiUser 01:28, September 5, 2012 (UTC) ::* The actual answer to the first question is in the bull's strength article. The spell lasts 1 hour per level. What is not in that article is the answer to a related, but completely different question: "What is the feat's caster level?". (Or perhaps "what level is used to determine how long bull's strength (feat) lasts?") If you had asked that question instead, it would have shown that you (probably) did know to check the other article, and I would have adjusted my answer accordingly. ::: I think it is clear whether or not extend spell can be used with the feat. From extend spell: "An extended spell occupies a spell slot one level higher than normal." Feats do not occupy spell slots, so the entire "Use:" section of extend spell is inapplicable. Hence the reasonable conclusion that extend spell cannot be used when activating a feat. ::: The greater bull's strength article mentions "the bull's strength spell and feat" (qualified as both a spell and a feat) followed by a reference to "bull's strength" (with no qualifications). The common interpretation of this kind of phrasing is that the unqualified term refers to both of the earlier-qualified terms. (In particular, the unqualified term is not generally interpreted as referring to just the first of the qualified terms.) It is implicit, rather than explicit, but it is a somewhat common structure and has the benefit of not bogging down the reader with so many details that the meaning of the sentence is lost. So you end up with a judgment call -- is it better to be overly wordy and explicit or concise and implicit. (And if this is what your second question was really about, you should have given some indication that this is what you were questioning. Even better, ask on the talk page for greater bull's strength, since that article is where the statement is.) ::: If you say what you mean (instead of just meaning what you say), it saves others the trouble of trying to read your mind. Which then saves you the frustration that comes when others fail to read your mind accurately. --The Krit (talk) 05:18, September 5, 2012 (UTC) :::* The requirement to "mind read" is also the problem with some of the documentation here as well, which was what prompted these questions in the first place. From here on though, it appears that rather than pursue this discussion further, I will just start adding my own edits when clarification seems reasonable. :::: SteveMaurer (talk) 21:47, September 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::* That's fine, but please do follow the manual of style. --The Krit (talk) 23:26, September 6, 2012 (UTC)